Trigger testnet & mainnet deployments with tags

[nop33]

@mvaivre @killerwhile I look forward to hear your thoughts on this proposal.

Problem

How do I know which frontend version is running on mainnet and on testnet? How do I know what was last deployed? The actions logs don't show me this information when deploying a branch (usually master) and not a tag, and even if it's a tag that is deployed, I have to dig that out from the logs of the last executed action.

Proposal 1

Similarly to how we trigger the "sign and release" workflow by pushing a tag that matches a regex in the desktop wallet, I am proposing that our "deploy to [mainnet|testnet]" workflows also get triggered by tags. Specifically, I propose:

• mainnet workflow gets triggered by tags that match the pattern v1.2.3
• testnet workflow gets triggereed by tags that match the above patter, but also v1.2.3-rc.0

Concerns

It's true that the "sign and release" workflow is less impactful. It creates a draft release. Nothing gets published until I explicitly edit the draft release and publish it. Whereas in the case of the explorer, things get deployed on public services.

Proposal 2

We figure out how to restrict the manual triggering amongst the tag options (aka: not be able to trigger the workflows on a branch but only on a tag. This doc page might have more info on how to do that: https://docs.github.com/en/actions/using-workflows/events-that-trigger-workflows#workflow_dispatch

---

On top of the above approaches, I think it'd be useful to have a small v1.2.3 text somewhere at the footer of the app:

---

I am open to your feedback and to discuss my approach and/or alternative approaches!

[mvaivre]

On top of the above approaches, I think it'd be useful to have a small v1.2.3 text somewhere at the footer of the app:

Good idea, we can definitely start with this! => #174

testnet workflow gets triggereed by tags that match the above patter, but also v1.2.3-rc.0

I'm not a fan of this. Testnet doesn't necessary mean that the version used isn't "stable". And I don't think it's good to artificially create an RC just for deployment purposes.

So I'm more in favour of your second proposal :)